Was Tyson-Douglas a fix?

I guess that's possible in certain cases.

there was a trail from tyson mcneely.

the organisations who police these things look for exactly what I wrote.

If you wanted to bet 2mill on douglas you would need private bettors to put up 84million, seems a touch unrealistic to me, much more likely you will be splitting your money between a bunch of different books.(There is also even less guarantee of getting paid doing it privatley)

The price from bookies is not just the little guys either, why do you think 100 £10 bets will move a line any differently from 1 £10,000 bet?

 

Tyson has been giving the public his inner world . Ehhhhhhh NO!

 

so say it's 60 million needed to find privatley, still a lot.
why would it be unthinkable for someone not to pay out on a private bet?(if i had the slightest suspicion that someone was stealing 60 million off me i'm not just going to hand it over)
why not take the better odds available in books then?

I gave an example of a fix being put through a legal book, and it was in one go, not even split down.

So why are people routinely caught and prosecuted by the profesionals who use analysis of price movement as a key indicator? If your theory was right no one would ever have been caught, either gamblers or sportsmen, as it is both have been many times and continue to be.

as far as the price movement it does not matter how many people know, it matters how much is bet, one man could bet 2 mill via smaller bets across many books, and it will effect the price exactly the same as the 2 mill coming from thousands of individuals small bets. You ignored my question of why there is a difference.

I am not in America, so I am not fully up to date with their gambling laws, I believe it is around $10,000 winnings in one go before the casino's are required to do paperwork on it, even if the limit is less, someone who really cared to could bet more or less as much as they want without drawing any initial heat.(I will freely admit this is not nearly as true for online betting as the records are kept and indisputable)

 

fair enough, i was wrong about that.

the question was why do you think one mans money changes a price differently to the same amount from many people? You can tell if i ask a question when there is a question mark, so yes i did ask one, in fact this is the third time ive asked it.

you can't just say tax reasons(although that would certainley be a factor) and expect me to accept it when you aren't answering any of my points, or aknowledging the example i gave of a million dollar bet being put through a book for a fix, or the fact that that is how they police sports betting.

 

please don't call me a liar again.

 

(2nd para) many big bets go through books too, there are books in vegas that will take millions and online sites like betfair that have no limit at all.
I'm not 100% disagreeing with you that private bets would be theoretically great for profiting from a fix, but the reality doesn't add up to me, for all the reasons ive previously written and that you have not acknowledged or countered.

fair enough, it seemed like you were, but you overlooked lots of questions tbf.

Seems like we will have to disagree on this, still I have never even heard the theory that favorites losing is any indicator of a fix, but it is proven fact that suspicious odds movement is suspicious.

in answer to the original question, no tyson v douglas was not a fix.

 

Heavyweight Championship boxing cannot be fixed..The largest bet possible is in Las Vegas where $1,000,000 can be bet. In London the largest bet is £500,000 Why would a Boxing Champion Fix a fight or throw his fight for such feeble money, compared to what he can earn from being champion of the world.

 

I think that you are looking for the wrong type of fights.

These are all events that would have been almost impossible to stage.

A shock knockout in the first round is what I would look for.

 

That is a red herring. The only reason Douglas was 42/1 was because The Mirage (the only hotel who had a book on the fight result), accepted a huge Tyson bet and got more and more desperate to try and balance the book, hence 42/1. Apparently no one took up The Mirage's offer...

In reality a one to one contest between two top professionals in a sport that can be finished in an instance is going to be no more than 90/10 shot...

 

Tyson-Douglas is the one fight in boxing history you can point to as not being fixed. The people who put it together did everything in their power to overturn it once Douglas won.

George was probably talking about HIS OWN fights.

The Foreman-Tony Fulilangi fight was fixed. Fulilangi admitted it afterward. He even admitted to going down after Foreman missed him with punches (which video replay confirmed). Bert Cooper was quitting fights for his promoter Rick Parker at the time he quit against Foreman. George Foreman-Terry Anderson was also rumored to be fixed fight. If a guy falls face first, and then pops up after he's been stopped like nothing happened, that's not a good sign.

(See Bruce Seldon's entire career).:hi:

 

Only one on that list: Ali vs Liston

 

I think there's dozens of fixed fights which have happened over the years.



Some a lot more obvious than others. The Ali-Liston fiasco is a notable one.



The rest who knows.



I'm sure there'd be some fighters coming out and talking about fixed fights when their money has dried up and falling outs with promoters, advisors,....etc....



I think some won't talk due to the damage it would do to their legacy or other fighters. Who knows.



I would have thought some would have talked about it by now, though. I've only heard of boxing historians talk about fixes and the like.